Who will be in the new Aussie Test Team?

[cameeel]

Were I a selector:

Hussey
Hayden
Ponting
Hodge
Clarke
Watson
Gilchrist
Bailey/Cullen (dependent on state performances)
Lee
Johnson
Clark

12. Jacques

Hussey can open, and even with Victorian bias Hodge deserves Martyn's spot. With regards to MacGill, there's absolutely no point replacing a 37 year old leggie with a 36 year old legspinner.

 

[adharcric]

How is MacGill's age relevant when he's the only proven test-class spinner left in Australia? He hasn't retired, so there's no reason he shouldn't be picked right now.
It would provide an interim period for one of the younger prospects, namely Bailey, Cullen and Casson, to stake a claim.

 

[cameeel]

....

 

[adharcric]

Double post mate.

 

[cameeel]

Double post mate.

Firefox crashed, but apparently still posted the first one.

 

[cameeel]

How is MacGill's age relevant when he's the only proven test-class spinner left in Australia? He hasn't retired, so there's no reason he shouldn't be picked right now.
It would provide an interim period for one of the younger prospects, namely Bailey, Cullen and Casson, to stake a claim.

Nobody's a proven test class spinner until they've been given a chance. Why delay the long-term spinner option for another two summers when they can give themselves a chance of solving it now.

 

[adharcric]

Nobody's a proven test class spinner until they've been given a chance. Why delay the long-term spinner option for another two summers when they can give themselves a chance of solving it now.

Have any of Bailey, Cullen or Casson really impressed in FC cricket enough to suggest that they would succeed at the highest level?
Unless they have, MacGill should be the choice until he's ready to call it a day and one of the prospects have really earned a chance in test cricket.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

How is MacGill's age relevant when he's the only proven test-class spinner left in Australia? He hasn't retired, so there's no reason he shouldn't be picked right now.
It would provide an interim period for one of the younger prospects, namely Bailey, Cullen and Casson, to stake a claim.

Yeah exactly. If MacGill can provide even one season of solid performances it gives extra time for someone else to improve and stake a claim. It's obvious that none of the other spinners are ready for test cricket yet. Cullen was the main contender but has really dropped away, Casson's not taking wickets or even playing consistently for NSW, Hogg's no younger than MacGill, Heal's had about 4 good matches, Hauritz is in the same boat as Casson, and Bailey's been the most impressive candidate but obviously has a long way to go.

White is the most well prepared, but it's really only his batting that looks good enough at test level, and it's unlikely he'd have any more impact than someone like Watson or Symonds with the ball, at least in the short term. MacGill's selection isn't being made with an eye to the future, he's simply the best candidate right now. Hopefully he can play for a while and someone else will put their hand up afterwards. By all means if he fails or if someone else is demanding selection replace him, but he has to be picked as things stand.

 

[Johnners]

The only way I'd support selecting any of those guys would be if they were averaging 20 or so for the season. Even when MacGill is bowling badly he's still the second best spinner in Australia very comfortably. Even in his bad run this season he has 16 wickets @ 34, compared to Bailey's 17 wickets @ 40, Cassons 7 wickets @ 46, White's 7 wickets @ 49 and Cullen's 2 wickets @ 76. Hauritz doesn't have a FC wicket. The only spinners who have outbowled MacGill have been from WA - Heal and Hogg, one of whom is a similar age to MacGill, and neither of whom have his long history of success in FC and test cricket.

I entirely agree that the younger spinners mentioned need to be averaging 20 odd before i'd consider picking them, i just don't think that Macgill should be seen as a certainty, and that he should have to be bowling as good as the rest of them to be selected.

Also, i beleive his age should be a factor, the way i see it, it's a backward step if any of the younger spinners are bowling better than him, yet he's still selected for the simple reason that we should now be looking towards the long-term future, and i'm pretty sure you'll agree that Stuey isn't part if it. That being said, choosing Macgill could be beneficial during the transition period from "Old" to "New" in that it gives the younger guys another season to improve they're game, hopefully making them better prepared for the jump to the test arena.

I think we'll all agree though that who ever is selected is going to have big shoes to fill, and i for 1 will be waiting with baited breath to see if Australia's next spinner can produce anythere near what Warne was capable of.

 

[howardj]

Clearly, one of the most reason compelling reasons why MacGill will be picked next Summer is our opponents. You're hardly going to throw Bailey (the only spinner besides MacGill that I would even contemplate picking at this stage) to the wolves against India. Moreover, without Warne and McGrath, Australia may have their work cut out containing the Indian batting line-up (as in 2003-04) and they'll need their best bowlers, as distinct from their best long term prospects, out there on the field.

 

[James90]

I think it's a pretty straight forward side if there are no more retirements before the next test series or horrible form slumps (not that it was be too clear anyway as there won't be much cricket).

Jaques/Rogers
Hayden
Ponting
Hussey
Clarke
Watson/Symonds
Gilchrist
Lee
Clark
Johnson
MacGill

There are several players who will compete for spots in the upcoming years though. Voges, Tait, Cullen, White, Hodge. More competition for spots should encourage some better performances from those involved (which is needed). Despite the fact that there are adequete replacements the retirements all add up and without Warne and McGrath it will be much more difficult to bowl sides out for 250.

 

[Nate]

MacGill is bowling horribly, and I see no reason why he should be picked,

Rogers
Clarke
Ponting
Hussey
Watson
Symonds
Gilchrist
Lee
Johnson
Clark
Heal

Yes indeed, I would shoot Hayden, and ruin the rest of the side.

 

[howardj]

I think, without Warne and McGrath, we'll slip back to the field a lot more than people think. It's not just their wicket taking ability or their ability to strangle the scoring, but the aura they give our team. We'll be stripped of our aura, ala 2003/04.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

MacGill is bowling horribly, and I see no reason why he should be picked,

Rogers
Clarke
Ponting
Hussey
Watson
Symonds
Gilchrist
Lee
Johnson
Clark
Heal

Yes indeed, I would shoot Hayden, and ruin the rest of the side.

Haha, please, no. If you're going to throw Clarke in opening and pick Symonds and Heal you may as well throw Bracken in there ahead of Johnson too. You know you want to.

 

[Nate]

If there was a Test Series coming up soon, and everyone was fit, I`d choose

Rogers
Hayden
Ponting
Hussey
Clarke
Symonds
Gilchrist
Lee
Johnson
Clark
Heal

I can`t bring myself to drop Symonds. His last two innings have been great, and under pressure, and I can`t see Watson out-batting him at present. I`m sticking with Heal, because I honestly think he`d outbowl MacGill at this stage, and we need a spinner. I know how stupidly outrageous these selections are, but I`m too passionate.

 

[The Sean]

I entirely agree that the younger spinners mentioned need to be averaging 20 odd before i'd consider picking them, i just don't think that Macgill should be seen as a certainty, and that he should have to be bowling as good as the rest of them to be selected.

Also, i beleive his age should be a factor, the way i see it, it's a backward step if any of the younger spinners are bowling better than him, yet he's still selected for the simple reason that we should now be looking towards the long-term future, and i'm pretty sure you'll agree that Stuey isn't part if it. That being said, choosing Macgill could be beneficial during the transition period from "Old" to "New" in that it gives the younger guys another season to improve they're game, hopefully making them better prepared for the jump to the test arena.

I think we'll all agree though that who ever is selected is going to have big shoes to fill, and i for 1 will be waiting with baited breath to see if Australia's next spinner can produce anythere near what Warne was capable of.

I like what you're saying there mate - good points, and the next couple of years will be fascinating as the next generation develop. I personally reckon MacGill deserves to be first in line at the moment, with the others staking their claims to his spot.

However, it's your last sentence I'm a little worried by - not for what you personally say, but because I think you reflect what so many of us feel whether explicitly or implicitly, that for better or worse we'll be comparing our next spinner to Warney. In the same way as so many prodigous young Australian batsmen (Harvey, Craig, Walters and most famously O'Neill) for 20 years after WWII were called the "new Bradman" and every England all rounder for the past two decades has been compared to Beefy (only Flintoff actually proving worthy of the title), we run a genuine risk here of putting an unbearable weight on the shoulders of whoever carries the spinner's torch for Australia in the coming years by comparing them to the almost incomparable. Even if we realistically admit that they probably won't be anywhere near the same class and try as hard as we can not to over-burden them with expectation, the fact that they directly follow a bloke so fresh in the hearts and minds of cricket lovers everywhere means that Warney's ghost could and probably will prove a curse more often than not. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I`m sticking with Heal, because I honestly think he`d outbowl MacGill at this stage, and we need a spinner. I know how stupidly outrageous these selections are, but I`m too passionate.

In form or not, MacGill will always be the safer bet. He's a proven wickettaker at Test level. Heal hasn't even proven that in domestic cricket as yet. Not to mention a wristspinner is generally more likely to take wickets than a fingerspinner. Australia practically have to pick MacGill when Warne goes.

 

[Nate]

He is bowling rubbish! I honestly think he is past it, and will fail to pressure the top-seven batsmen of any major side.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

He is bowling rubbish! I honestly think he is past it, and will fail to pressure the top-seven batsmen of any major side.

And you honestly believe Heal can cope at the highest level? A 23-year-old with all of 5 FC matches to his name and an average of 34.27 and he's going to displace a man with 198 international wickets?

 

[Nate]

If there was a Test Series coming up, I believe Heal would outperform MacGill and gain valuable Test-match experience. I see no positives in picking a 36 year-old in horrible form.